Elections are on the distant horizon. Its paralysis time, not clobberin' time.

Opinion here is that two-party politics and politicians failed and there are a few key reasons that can explain most the failure. Political party and incumbent self-interest is one of them. The situation is common, garden variety service to political self-interest pushing aside service to the public interest. This complaint and variants thereof have been aired here before. The topic is old but still relevant.

 U.S. supplies to Pakistanis - 2010

Are we paralyzed yet?

One can easily argue that political self-interest sometimes manifests itself in the form of political paralysis associated with political elections. Is it fair or reasonable to believe that in November of 2011, one year from a presidential election, American politics at the national level is already poisoned and paralyzed by partisan politics? In view of our serious, complex problems, is it sane to even suggest that American politics is largely diverted to serving partisan politics for at least one year out of every four, i.e., about 25% of the time, in presidential election years and for several months more for off-year elections, maybe about 35-40% of the time in total? Is that just a nutty opinion unique to Calmoderate? Is Calmoderate wrong? Cal doesn't think so for either question.


Arguing that American politics is in full blown political paralysis in anticipation of an election one year from now is completely nuts. Or is it? What does reasonable, well-informed opinion from outside the U.S. have to say? The November 5-11, 2011 (page 15) issue of The Economist opines on the issue (online article here):

"The coming presidential election badly needs a shot of centrist pragmatism. . . . . . . . Already American politics has succumbed to election paralysis, with neither party interested in bipartisan solutions."

Afghanistan 2010

In an interview (Nov. 14, 2011), presidential candidate John Huntsman opined that a president typically has only the first two years or so in office to get anything done. After that, election cycle paralysis sets in, e.g., as lame duck syndrome, etc. If that is true, and it seems to be, is electing a president for two of every four good or not? I suppose that for most people it is good if you don't like the president and bad if you do. That's a heck of a way to run a representative democracy. Probably a bad way, unless dysfunction is a good thing.

Its not just Cal who thinks that the two political parties and their politicians put their agendas first and foremost. When you think about whose side they are on, it is hard to see how the situation could get much clearer. About the only thing that could make political priorities more clear would be if they just came out and admitted it.

How can you know if money in politics corrupts politics?

Opinion from here holds that two-party politics has failed and that there are a few key reasons behind most the failure. Special interest money corrupting politics is one of them. Arguments that support or justify effects of special interest money in politics are weak at best. A reasonable question is how far can one carry the argument. Can small amounts of special interest money donated to specific federal government agencies have any meaningful impact on agency policy?

An example - Did $13 million affect national park policy?

The New York Times (pages A1, A4, November 10, 2011; online article) reported that head of federal parks Jon Jarvis blocked a planned ban on sales of plastic water bottles in Grand Canyon National Park. The NYT article linked that action to $13 million Coca-Cola donated to the National Park Foundation and a recent meeting between Coca-Cola and national park officials. The water bottles are the biggest source of litter in the park and a source of income for Coca-Cola ($400,000/year in sales, profit margin unknown). Mr. Jarvis was reported to block the ban to allow time to "get more information".

 Desert Storm - Kuwait - 1991

Coca-Cola argued that imposing the ban would be a mistake because it limited personal choice and that increasing recycling would address the problem. As usual when questions about the effect of money in politics comes up, park officials denied that the money had any impact on the decision to block the bottle ban. The park service also denied that Coca-Cola's donations bought "access". Requests for information turned up not much. Events occurred behind closed doors. Other details are in the article. Presumably the littered bottles in the park are disposed of sooner or later when someone picks them up at taxpayer expense.

Under the circumstances, could $13 million in donations to a foundation dedicated to helping national parks affect the decision to block a planned policy action? In other political contexts, e.g., attempts to impose recycling fees in many states, have been blocked or limited by bottlers and retail outlets who don't want the cost and mess associated with recycling discarded bottles.

Cruise missile launch, Operation Odyssey Dawn 

Libya (Mediterranean fleet) - March 2011

(defending Libyan civilians)

Did Coca-Cola's donations affect the federal decision making process and prevent implementing the ban? Is this an example of politics corrupted by special interest money? Will this force taxpayers to foot the bill to implement recycling infrastructure in Grand Canyon National Park so that Coca-Cola can continue to make money as usual without paying for infrastructure to deal with the litter problem?

Its likely that many or most liberals generally hostile to business would see corruption while many or most conservatives would not. How should a pragmatist with no faith in the two-party system or politics as usual look at it? Pragmatically, that's how. Let the facts speak for themselves, ignore political or religious ideology and then draw reasonable common-sense conclusions.

The facts are that special interest money was paid and the special interest argued against a planned federal action that would impair the special interest's economic interest. According to the NYT article, it is a fact that a bottle ban in another national park in Utah was highly successful in reducing litter. It is also a fact that people involved deny anything wrong was done and that there is nothing to be concerned about.

Afghanistan 2010 - U.S. Air Force Capt. Ryan Weld talks with 

villagers during a wroowali (brotherhood) mission in 

Bakorzai village, Afghanistan, Dec. 22, 2010 - 

do you know what they are thinking?

It was corruption: The preponderance of evidence (more likely than not standard) is a reasonable standard of evidence to use if you don't trust the people or interests involved. Applying that without bias one way or the other to the facts at hand, its reasonable to conclude that special interest money corrupted political policy. In other words, $13 million did in fact corrupt a planned federal agency policy. The denials of everyone involved is heard and fully understood but not persuasive. If no money had been donated, the conclusion would have been different. But since money was involved and the policy change was inexplicable, the logical conclusion was that special interest money corrupted politics.

A big problem: That's a major problem in politics. How does one know if corruption occurs in cases where special interest money is involved, government action or policy later favors the special interest, everyone denies that the money had anything whatever to do with it and everything was done in the public interest? That is always the case for that fact pattern. I am aware of no exceptions. Given that, how do you tell an honest government action or policy that is not affected by special interest money from one that is?

If there was reason to have some trust two-party politics or our political system (and maybe apply a different standard of evidence to give the parties some benefit of a doubt), then the conclusion might go the other way. The amount of money involved, $13 million, was relatively small. Or, was it so small? There is no way to know. When special interest money is involved and the special interest inexplicably gets what it wants, then the fair and balanced conclusion is that politics was corrupted. For some people, like me, that's how people can perceive government when trust is lost.

How to blunt special interest money corruption? Fight fire with hotter fire.

Lobbyists currently spend about $3.5 billion per year trying to influence congress. In response, members of congress spend a lot of time with lobbyists, 25-50% by one estimate. There are about 13,000 registered lobbyists and 535 voting members of congress, a ratio of about 24:1. Logic and common sense says that people who hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions do it on that scale because it is effective. Common sense argues that the money would not be there if it was ineffective. Otherwise, businesses being efficient and not stupid, would not waste money and would simply try to persuade congress by arguing their case on the merits and not waste the cash.

What is a reasonable conclusion? Special interest money buys some, many or most people in congress and that's the incentive to pay incumbents in the first place. Of course, everyone involved usually (i) denies that money buys anything other than innocent "access" to congress and (ii) whatever goes on is 100% in the public interest. Special interests include (i) private and public sector campaign contributors and their lobbyists, (ii) members of congress and (iii) both political parties. On occasion, a player does come clean and admit that the money game is something other than pure innocence. Those folks are usually (but not always*) retired or not running for re-election. They have nothing to lose in their quest to burnish their public record for posterity.

* This exception to the rule is revealing. Search for "lobby" in the transcript and scan the text associated with the hits. The situation can't get any clearer without the people involved going to jail for admitting to felonies.

So, can anything be done about it? Probably. Consider the following two scenarios.

  USS Ronald Reagan 

Near Hawaii - July 2010

Scenario 1 - Politics as usual: Powerful senator X is at a high powered cocktail party in Georgetown with many high powered lobbyists. Loads of power are everywhere. Those are folks loaded with cash to contribute to the senator's re-election campaign through "gentle" persuasion, or if things don't go well, the senator's challenger in the next election. The senator really wants to be re-elected and doesn't want that cash going to whoever X's next opponent. The senator's interest is piqued and he/she sets up an appointment with the lobbyist and the two speak off the record behind closed doors. A law is altered somehow and the lobbyist got what he/she wanted.

What happened was off the record and behind closed doors. But if on the outside chance the senator is caught red-handed fudging the law and is publicly called on it, senator X will argue it was in the public interest. And, if there is enough at stake and it is necessary, the special interest will pay millions or tens of millions in media buys to convince us. That's politics as usual. What is the net effect of that kind of political business as usual on the public interest over time? Good, bad or indifferent?

U.S. Cruise missile launch - operation Odyssey Dawn

defending Libyan civilians - March 2011

Scenario 2 - Politics not as usual: The same scenario as above, e.g., senator X is at a high powered cocktail party in Georgetown with high powered lobbyists loaded with cash to help the senator's re-election campaign or the senator's challenger in the next election. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is a difference. Here, if senator X takes lobbyist money his top one or two bona fide challengers in the next election gets three (or two or whatever is needed) dollars for every dollar that the senator takes from any special interest while in office, including his own political party. But if the incumbent takes no special interest money, he/she and their bona fide opponents all get the same in the next election. Everyone is on the same financial footing.

Vicious public financing

In that not politics as usual scenario senator's thoughts might be: "Geez, wait a minute. If I take $400,000 from lobbyist Z, my opponent will have $1.2 million with which to distort my record and smear my good name - I would have only $400,000 in comparable smear power. I might even lose the next election - I live in a God-awful purple state. On the other hand, I could just (i) listen to what Z has to say, not take his money, and then decide if acting on his request is in my best interest, er, um, no wait, the public interest, or not or (ii) ignore Z because he obviously has nothing of real importance to ask for - there is no political risk (no harm to the public and thus no avenue of attack against me in the next election ) in just blowing him off." In this scenario the politician has to consider the public interest. There is no financial incentive favoring the special interest unless the two interests more or less overlap, e.g., win-win scenarios, which is just fine (preferred, actually) whenever they arise.

  Air dropped supplies for Company D, 1st Battalion 

4th Infantry Regiment over Forward Operating Base Baylough, 

Zabul province, Afghanistan - June 2010

What is the net effect of that kind of political business not as usual on the public interest over time? Good, bad or indifferent? What if every special interest knew that there was no way they could ever provide any incumbent or challenger with anything but a financial disadvantage regardless of how much they spent? Would it blunt the power of special interest money to buy people in congress without compelling arguments? It should.

Logically speaking, outspending special interests should at least partly neuter the special interest incentive to buy the senator and/or get the politician to be more attentive to public service. There is no reason to believe it would not work in that manner. This is just a matter of aligning capitalist incentives to favor the public interest.

Religion in politics is relevant

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece (November 4, 2011, page A17; online version) argued that the differing religious beliefs of Republican candidate Herman Cain and President Obama affected their campaigns and different ways of dealing with the U.S. economy. I recently argued here (and elsewhere) that religion affects all kinds of perceptions, right or wrong. Perception is reality, and perceived reality guides politics. Of course, if perception is wrong*, politics is on balance less effective and efficient than when perception isn't clouded.

* Wrong and other 'absolute' terms mean mostly wrong, not necessarily completely wrong. In politics, there is no true consensus about what most anything means.

 The A-10C

So, who do you want calling the shots in Washington: The theology exemplified by the Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta (Cain), the theology exemplified by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama) or whatever makes pragmatic sense in view of the problem at hand (me)? Mr. Cain's conservative theology holds that the scripture is perfect (inerrant) and that historic Christian creeds, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15, are literally true. Mr. Obama's theology does not so hold and the opinion piece points out how their different religious beliefs could easily affect their political beliefs. Religion is usually (but not always) just fine for personal spiritual needs. But it isn't usually fine for political policy. The "theology" of pragmatism and unspun reality is best for politics. Personal salvation needs are different from public policy and the public interest.

Force an answer

Of course, President Obama would, if forced to answer the question of whether his religion affects his economic policies, would demur and say that he defends the constitution. He's  a Democrat. If asked, Mr. Cain probably would not demur like that. He would assert that religion is front and center (just like it was for President Bush). He's a Republican for whom religion is key. When under stress, he sometimes sings solo gospel songs in public, e.g., at the national press club.

 A drone

Who wrote it?

The WSJ opinion was written by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville Maryland. A reasonable guess is that Bishop Jackson isn't an evil agnostic or something worse from the religious point of view. If what he said about politics isn't true, then why did he say what he said? Why did he say that religion can explain where Obama and Cain can come from in terms of economic policy? He said it because it is true.

That looks ominous

In view of the WSJ opinion piece, at least some folks can see the power of religious belief in politics. Is it important and relevant, or not? Your choice.

Who are the patriots: Ideologues or pragmatists?

We are generally familiar with the rock-solid belief in political and religious ideology that characterize many or most hard core liberals and conservatives. Faith in ideology is a source of strength and certitude in their belief. In short, they know they have it all just about right. Their ideological opposition is wrong and therefore responsible for most of the problems. These folks stand on rock-solid principle, black and white reality and the moral high ground. They are respected pillars of the community and towers of strength and truth in troubled times. They are real patriots.

Reality check

OK, that's one way to look at ideologues. It's a fairly common perception among ideologues. That's how many hard core ideologues look at it for the most part, especially conservatives. That's reasonable. If it were otherwise, rock-solid belief in infallible ideology wouldn't make much sense. It is just 8th or 9th grade logic, not rocket science.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2009

Yes, but . . . . 

But what about true, hard core pragmatists? By my definition and that of others, and yet more others, pragmatists don't rely on political or religious ideology to guide them. They tend to see more shades of gray and nuance than black and white. They tend to look for facts, unspun truth and unspun analysis to get at the nature of political problems and issues. They try to see reality for what it is, not for what it should be to fit any infallible political or religious ideology. What could such odious people possibly bring to the party that isn't already there? How can they be considered patriots or courageous in any way, shape or form? Aren't they weak of character, untrustworthy folks with bland spines of Jello® and no real political or moral principles?

Reality check, part 2

OK, that's one way to look at pragmatists. That's how many ideologues probably look at it, especially hard core conservatives. Maybe that's how the majority of the American public looks at it. For the ideologues, that makes sense. If it were otherwise, it would not make much sense to discard belief in ideology. Again, that's just simple logic. We are all on the same page here, right? Well, no we are not. Not by a long shot.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2010

A different way of looking at it

To a large extent, most Americans probably don't think much one way or another about pragmatists. They are distracted by their everyday lives and/or polluted by partisan spin, which is what dominates politics. The word pragmatism is rarely mentioned in politics. No hard core liberal or conservative stands up and thunders to the crowd that they are pragmatic. They are "liberal", "conservative" and/or, for the religious set, "devout", not pragmatic. There is at least one other way to look at pragmatism. From a pragmatic point of view, real political courage and patriotism* generally resides in pragmatists and weakness resides in political/religious ideologues.

* In this context patriotism means having the strength of character to see reality for what it is, regardless of whether it's comfortable. For this discussion, it does not mean patriotism in terms of other kinds of courage, e.g., courage in war or self-sacrifice in another service to the public. The two can be different - they may or may not overlap much.

How could that possibly be? It could be like this. Pragmatists try to face reality for what it is, even if that means (i) accepting uncomfortable realities as true and (ii) logically concluding that uncomfortable political policies should be implemented to address uncomfortable reality. By contrast, what do hard core ideologues usually do? They generally deny, distort or downplay realities (facts) and political policies that contradict or undercut their ideology. That might reasonably be called a lack of moral courage.

Put up or shut up

The blast back from ideologues is obvious: Is there even a shred of evidence that ideology distorts reality and thus impairs politics or makes it ineffective? No there isn't a shred of evidence. There are boat loads of it. Some religious ideologues know (believe) that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Some others know that intelligent design is a true scientific theory, not religious belief, that should be taught in public schools exclusively or on an equal par with the theory of evolution. Those beliefs come from religious ideology or faith, not pragmatic, scientific reality. Many political conservative ideologues tend to be skeptical of or outright deny that global warming (i) is real and/or (ii) humans have anything to do with it. Mainstream science doesn't comport with that, but ideologue skeptics refuse to see it that way because it undercuts their politics. Obviously, ideology can distort perceptions of reality and when it does, it generally (but not always) makes political policies less effective, increases waste and does not serve the public interest.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2009

Pragmatists generally accept reality for what it is, even if they sometimes don't much like it. By contrast, most ideologues accept reality if they like it but tend not to if they don't. Who has the moral courage? Who are the patriots? People who retreat into comfortable ideology and deny reality or people who have the moral courage to face it?